echo88 74 Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 <img src=http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_DK5kClhvDys/TBkp0IbM_LI/AAAAAAAADKI/7UH2YJoy2ZE/s320/davis.JPG border=”0” alt> Ill tell you who is to blame for the perceived climate shift. Those damn chemtrails. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ND3 0 Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Livonia is 2º warmer.... So what if they eliminated the Ann Arbor station in favor of the Livonia station, because Livonia had a higher average reading? Which isn't at all far fetched because they have been removing stations since 1990, declining from more than 6,000 stations to fewer than 1,500. And many of those eliminated are in higher latitudes and altitudes, inland areas away from the sea, as well as more rural locations. Keep those stations in densely populated areas and concrete jungles... Do you have any data to support this conjecture? That the stations are being removed from cooler locations rather than warmer locations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratey 6 Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Do you have any data to support this conjecture? That the stations are being removed from cooler locations rather than warmer locations? http://www.surfacestations.org/ http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/18/more-errors-in-temperature-data/?feat=home_editorials Summing this up: The findings by Mr. D’Aleo and Mr. Watts also explain some puzzles that have bothered researchers. For example, land-based temperatures have been rising while satellite-based measures haven’t shown the same increase since 1990. Their answer is that at that point in time, the elimination of weather stations produced a false measured increase in temperatures that didn’t affect the satellite readings. There is no evidence (yet) that this effort was consciously designed to increase recorded temperatures, but that is beside the point. The crux of the matter is that fanatics about man-made global warming want to spend trillions of dollars based on conclusions from faulty data. Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/18/more-errors-in-temperature-data/?feat=home_editorials#ixzz332so9UhZ Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ND3 0 Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 http://www.surfacestations.org/ http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/18/more-errors-in-temperature-data/?feat=home_editorials Summing this up: There is data available to support the opposing argument as well... While it is true that the number of stations in GHCN has decreased since the early 1990s, that has no real effect on the results of spatially weighted global temperature reconstructions. How do we know this? Comparisons of trends for stations that dropped out versus stations that persisted post-1990 show no difference in the two populations prior to the dropouts (see, e.g., here and here and here). The spatial weighting processes (e.g., gridding) used in these analyses makes them robust to the loss of stations. In fact, Nick Stokes has shown that it's possible to derive a global temperature reconstruction using just 61 stations worldwide (in this case, all the stations from GISTEMP that are classified as rural, have at least 90 years of data, and have data in 2010). Other data sets that don't suffer from GHCN's decline in station numbers show the same temperature increase (see below). One prominent claim (by Joe D'Aleo and Anthony Watts) was that the loss of "cool" stations (at high altitudes, high latitudes, and rural areas) created a warming bias in the temperature trends. But Ron Broberg conclusively disproved this, by comparing trends after removing the categories of stations in question. D'Aleo and Watts are simply wrong. http://skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1qa 0 Posted May 30, 2014 Author Share Posted May 30, 2014 There is data available to support the opposing argument as well... http://skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm "One prominent claim (by Joe D'Aleo and Anthony Watts) was that the loss of "cool" stations (at high altitudes, high latitudes, and rural areas) created a warming bias in the temperature trends. But Ron Broberg conclusively disproved this, by comparing trends after removing the categories of stations in question. D'Aleo and Watts are simply wrong. " So, Piratey, you are now engaged in a scientific debate ... you have the choice of reviewing the data / arguments and determining whether you agree that D'Aleo and Watts are wrong or NOT. If NOT wrong, then as a scientist, you would be obliged to explain why the counter argument is flawed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratey 6 Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 (edited) "One prominent claim (by Joe D'Aleo and Anthony Watts) was that the loss of "cool" stations (at high altitudes, high latitudes, and rural areas) created a warming bias in the temperature trends. But Ron Broberg conclusively disproved this, by comparing trends after removing the categories of stations in question. D'Aleo and Watts are simply wrong. " So, Piratey, you are now engaged in a scientific debate ... you have the choice of reviewing the data / arguments and determining whether you agree that D'Aleo and Watts are wrong or NOT. If NOT wrong, then as a scientist, you would be obliged to explain why the counter argument is flawed. Ron Broberg didn't conclusively disprove anything. Joe D'Aleo and Anthony Watts aren't the only two who have moved forward on the inane data known as surface temperatures. Ross McKitrick has been championing the notion that surface temps are completely unreliable since 2002. In 2007 he published the following paper backing up his hypothesis http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/jgr07/jgr07.html They basically have tried to sweep this under the rug for the better part of 7 years...Until finally... Subsequently McKitrick and Michaels (2007) concluded that about half the reported warming trend in global-average land surface air temperature in 1980–2002 resulted from local land-surface changes and faults in the observations. Schmidt (2009) undertook a quantitative analysis that supported AR4 conclusions that much of the reported correlation largely arose due to naturally occurring climate variability and model over-fitting and was not robust. Taking these factors into account, modified analyses by McKitrick (2010) and McKitrick and Nierenberg (2010) still yielded significant evidence for such contamination of the record. Meaning the paper that tried to debunk the myth, was proven wrong. Urban Heat Islands are real and it throws off surface temps..Hell your own link you used had this little nugget tucked away at the end: Overall, the satellite measurements show lower trends than surface measurements. This is a bit of a puzzle, because climate models suggest that overall the lower troposphere should be warming about 1.2X faster than the surface So a wall of text crits you for 9999 so you ignore the little footer. So is "man" causing warming temps across the globe? I don't think so. But they sure as hell cause hotter weather in urban environments. http://www.businessinsider.com/thermal-images-explain-urban-heat-island-effect-2013-8?op=1 I also see you completely danced around the evidence that showed that many studies are fudging historical records of average temps... The crux of the whole issue, is this. Is man causing a rise in global temperatures? Can it be caused by solar activity? Natural weather trends? Edited May 30, 2014 by piratey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratey 6 Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 In response to the OP... http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/1/pentagon-wrestles-with-false-climate-predictions-a/ Ten years ago, the Pentagon paid for a climate study that put forth many scary scenarios. Consultants told the military that, by now, California would be flooded by inland seas, The Hague would be unlivable, polar ice would be mostly gone in summer, and global temperatures would rise at an accelerated rate as high as 0.5 degrees a year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1qa 0 Posted April 7, 2015 Author Share Posted April 7, 2015 http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/climate-change-deniers-are-in-retreat/2015/04/06/942eb980-dc9f-11e4-be40-566e2653afe5_story.html?hpid=z2 Anyone here in retreat yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jessemoore97 1,286 Posted April 7, 2015 Share Posted April 7, 2015 http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/climate-change-deniers-are-in-retreat/2015/04/06/942eb980-dc9f-11e4-be40-566e2653afe5_story.html?hpid=z2 Anyone here in retreat yet? So politicians and groups who depend on money from outside sources are changing their rhetoric in order to keep cash flowing into them? This is a surprise to who? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.